No Way Out After Murder Conviction

Intentionally Shooting a Woman With A Rifle is Murder
Post 5196

When You Plead Guilty You Must Accept the Sentence

In Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania v. Mark D. Redfield, No. 20 WDA 2025, No. J-S24010-25, Superior Court of Pennsylvania (September 19, 2025) the appellate court reviewed the case of Mark D. Redfield, who pleaded guilty to third-degree murder for killing April Dunkle with malice using a rifle.

Affirmation of Sentence:

The sentencing court’s judgment was affirmed, and jurisdiction was relinquished, concluding no abuse of discretion occurred.

Reasonable Inference on Trigger Pulling:

The sentencing court reasonably inferred from the guilty plea facts that the appellant pulled the trigger causing the victim’s death, an inference supported by the record and consistent with the plea.

Guilty Plea Facts:
The appellant admitted during the plea hearing to retrieving a rifle, pointing it at the victim, and that a discharged round caused the victim’s death, establishing malice.
Sentencing Within Guidelines:

The sentence fell within the agreed plea range and complied with statutory and guideline requirements, considering all relevant factors including the presentence investigation report.

Consideration of Sentencing Factors:

The court properly balanced sentencing factors such as public protection, offense gravity, victim impact, and defendant rehabilitation needs, without reweighing on appeal.

Preservation and Review of Discretionary Claims:

The appellant preserved his sentencing claims through timely motions and appeals, raising a substantial question about the sentencing court’s factual assumptions.

Rejection of Appellant’s Argument:

The court rejected the appellant’s argument that the sentence was excessive due to an assumption he pulled the trigger, noting this was a permissible inference and consistent with the plea.

ANALYSIS

Sentencing is a matter vested in the sound discretion of the sentencing judge, and a sentence will not be disturbed on appeal absent a manifest abuse of discretion.

The appellate court shall vacate the sentence and remand the case to the sentencing court with instructions if it finds:

the sentencing court purported to sentence within the sentencing guidelines but applied the guidelines erroneously;
the sentencing court sentenced within the sentencing guidelines but the case involves circumstances where the application of the guidelines would be clearly unreasonable; or
the sentencing court sentenced outside the sentencing guidelines and the sentence is unreasonable.

In all other cases the appellate court shall affirm the sentence imposed by the sentencing court.

In reviewing the record, the appellate court considers:

The nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant.
The opportunity of the sentencing court to observe the defendant, including any presentence investigation [(PSI)].
The findings upon which the sentence was based.
The guidelines promulgated by the commission. [42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(d).]

Here, the sentencing court concluded: “In this case, the sentencing court's statement that [Appellant] ‘pulled the trigger’ is a reasonable inference based upon the factual basis placed on the record at the guilty plea hearing. In the Appellant's guilty plea, he admitted to factual averments which established third-degree murder.

Upon considering the record in its totality, the appellate court found no abuse of discretion by the sentencing court. The sentencing court inferred that Appellant "pulled the trigger" based on the factual basis Appellant admitted to during his plea hearing.

Appellant's sentence fell within the range agreed upon in his guilty plea, which complied with relevant statutory requirements and sentencing guidelines. Additionally, the sentencing court considered all relevant factors when fashioning sentence, including information from the PSI report and any mitigating circumstances. An appellate court will not re-weigh the sentencing court's consideration of those factors on appeal.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

ZALMA OPINION

Criminals convicted of murder will spend a long time as guests of the American prison systems so they have no compunction to try anything possible to be released. Mr. Redfield tried only to meet an intelligent and capable judge and appellate court who decided to keep him in jail.

(
c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.

Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.

Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe

Go to X @bzalma;  Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.